PUNCHUP TIME AT THE HOUNDER CORRAL

Looks like there's been a bust-up on the hounders, with Russian Doll flouncing/getting banned.

Bennett, still gibbering on about the Smiths:

This is exactly what russiandoll was suggesting, yet she held herself up as an almost lone 'voice of reason' on this forum (!).

Someone called kevmac:

Sorry Tony, but it is you who is making the whole issue of the Smith sighting very convoluted. And what exactly has Russian Doll got to do with this? I have read the thread in the lounge, and I think perhaps this thread isn't the place for rehashing that again.

The Rooster wrote:Sorry to hear about Russian Doll leaving, she was one of the best posters on the forum. Question 3 is a very good question and I think you are right KevM in you writings.

Is it all right, The Rooster, to mention at this point that you openly admit to being a 'very good friend' of multi-millionaire Cheshire businessman, Brian Kennedy

Kevmac again:

Well if it isn't, it's a bit late now Tony. Seriously why are you taking all this stuff with the Smith sighting so personally? If anyone disagrees with you, you make patronising statements to them, almost like they are dumb for having the opinion that they do, and now attacking the Rooster because he supported someone you fell out with the other night..Wow..

You seriously think it's okay to post people's private info on an open forum...Wow,.lets hope you don't fall foul of someone who will do the same to you

I thought we were over all of this ridiculous "outing" stuff..it really is immature. Mods and Admin have repeatedly said that if you have a problem with someone, either PM them or the person in question..

Shocked, really am

kevmac:

Yes of course I've heard of Brian Kennedy..but revealing private info sent in a pm...that's deplorable, what a breach of trust.

As for the thing with Russian Doll, I'll rephrase it, she was critical of Tony, tony is obviously not over it, to make references to her in this thread. She has gone, therefore no need for it

And most certainly no need to reveal personal information about another poster just because they mentioned the person in question

Bennett to Rooster:

hese just coincidences?Post Tony Bennett Today at 10:37 pm

The Rooster wrote:Of course it is dear boy. But as you are fully aware that was content in a private message between you and I and there wont be any more of those for obvious reasons.

I didn't expect there to be any more, anyway, The Rooster, after our exchanges last year - but don't worry, I won't reveal your real identity, which I've known about for some considerable time now.

But in my judgment the time has come for forum members to be made aware that some people on this forum who have very close associations to the McCann Team, such as you have had since before Madeleine was reported missing, masquerade here under a variety of guises

kevmack wrote:And most certainly no need to reveal personal information about another poster just because they mentioned the person in question

I will leave forum members to judge for themselves whether they would prefer to know, or not know, that a close personal friend of Brian Kennedy has been masquerading here for yeaa as being genuinely committed to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

I have revealed nothing more than that, not who The Rooster is, nor where he lives, what his occupation might or might not be, nor for how long he and the Director of the McCanns' series of dodgy private investigators have been close friends.

I know all these things and more.

But will refrain from saying anything more about them

Some nonentity lackey:

a breach of trust.

I regard Rooster's membership of, and contribution to, this forum as a breach of trust, considering his links with the Mcs.

Kevmack to lackey:

And now you're making assumptions based on nothing, because you don't know a thing about this poster other than what Tony has just said

I am disgusted...

Someone called Stargazer:

Russian doll was imo a voice of reason on here, very sad to see her gone, Tony i supported you but you are coming across as a martinet, i know i will get abuse or banned for that comment but as someone who reads more than posts , from the outside that is what it looks like is happening. This is about Madeleine not your ego.

Sometimes you are wrong Tony just like the rest of us, sometimes you are rude to people, just like the rest of us, but you seem to feel you re above the rest of us, it is sad to see what is going on , i guess that is my goodbye to this place as i am sure i will be banned

kevmack, if you agree with Chatelaine why are you continuing this exchange on an open forum?

My assumption is based on Rooster's admission upthread, not on nothing. I am glad that he has been exposed.

yoyo has DISAGREED with Bennett and the lackey.

Sorry LIR, I have to disagree.

Poster here knowing people associated to Mcs or even knowing the McCs does not necessarily mean they are pro team mcs, else they would have no need to share the info with TB. The info was shared in confidante and should respectfully remain so.

kevmack to lackey:

Exposed for what? Knowing someone..

Unbelievable

And I am continuing this because I believe in justice, and to post people's personal info, that you were told in confidence, on an open forum, is quite frankly despicable and if you can't see that, then I think it gives a good measure of your character as well

But I'll leave you to chat to tony about his conspiracy theory alone..I'm out of this thread

Stargazer to Bennett re Russian Doll:

No her "voice of reason " was asking you not to abuse people who disagreed with you, she was calm and controlled and will be missed , have you ever considered that sometimes you may be wrong?

Mr Bennett you know my identity because I told you. You and the dear Lady in Red should read my previous posts before making sweeping accusations. Read them and apologise. I assure you any apology will be humbly respected.

No her "voice of reason " was asking you not to abuse people who disagreed with you, she was calm and controlled and will be missed , have you ever considered that sometimes you may be wrong?

Stargazer 59, sorry to say, voice of reason is all very well, but when she became overly suspicious whenever every poster not admonished by mods for opposing poster who oppose to TB that she went behind the poster back to knife the poster to mod/admin in pm just to satisfy her witch hunt against TB is equally demonstrating unpleasant personality trait.

Imagine, anyone not on her side where TB is concerned has the potential to be knived by her in the back to satisfy her witch hunt against TB; that is also bit ridiculous isn't it? Watching was banned solely on her opposition, how scary is that.

It's her choice to leave. Clearly she doesn't like it here anymore, so be it.Why lament over someone who does not want to be here. At least she stands by her principles and that deserves respect.

The man who made notes of what to say in green ink on his hotel notepaper IIRC - and the judge told him to stop reading them (!).

He also admitted spending a great deal of time infiltrating McCann-sceptic forums.

I agree fully with what you say about The Rooster's posts.

But if you were Michael Wright - or for that matter a close friend for many years of Brian Kennedy - and you wanted to garner information from a forum like this - or quietly subvert it, would you come on here in attack and abuse mode - or would you behave like 'The Rooster'...and be measured...sensible?

I guess though it's time to get back to whether or not Adrian Oldfield looks very like one of the efits, and whether or not there is any possibility that those two efits were NOT produced by the Smiths - as the Head of Operation Grange clearly intends us to think

But, Tony, why would The Rooster admit his identity to you in confidence if that wasn't a demonstration of his honourable intentions on here? Why would he bother or risk doing so if his intention was to mischief-make? If he was a rogue, surely he'd just keep schtum?

____________________

Post Châtelaine Today at 11:55 pm

I find a breach of confidence inexcusable. If it would happen to me, I would come down like a ton of bricks ..

ShuBob Today at 12:00 am

I know Candyfloss is totally against posting information contained in PM's in the open forum. Surely, in her absence here tonight other mods will condemn this deplorable behaviour. It's preposterous! And before anyone asks, I have no intention of flouncing. I intend to stay until such a time I'm kicked out!

---------

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath Today at 12:06 am

The site owner isn't available and I feel that she should give her opinion on what has happened here.

In the meantime, may I ask that we keep on topic here.

Private messages can I assure you be sent to me in confidence.

Shubob:

But there's been a clear breach of rules here which hasn't been addressed. Is it now ok to post private messages on the forum?

Some minor member:

am quite a newcomer but a long time reader of this forum and have found all of this "upset" in this thread tonight quite off - putting for all those who come to read this very well run and informative forum ........I believe airing these grievances in the public eye could put potential members off registering when reading about " outing" of posters . just my view and I am not making any judgements of any posters here.

This arguing and bickering about Rooster, Russian D etc. is ridiculous. Cop on people. Tomorrow is what we should be focusing on. It is the biggest day of the past 7 years in the search for justice for Madeleine.

Thetruthewillout:

I agree maebee but understand the backlash. Also I did respond to Tony's OP but got no response....

Shubob:

But there's been a clear breach of rules here which hasn't been addressed. Is it now ok to post private messages on the forum?

Maebee:

Sorry Shu, I was busy today & just skimmed through today's posts tonight and only saw arguing between members. I didn't see anything about private messages being posted on the forum. That's a no no. I just wish we could stick to the topic at hand.

Shubob:

It is that very issue which is at the heart of the bickering- not posting PMs directly but posting information contained in PM's. I will say it again, I'm appalled by what's happened on this thread tonight.

Yo-yo's thoughts on Oakley:

TB wrote:DCI Redwood’s two efits were apparently drawn up by Oakley International/Kevin Halligen/Henri Exton, under the supervision of Brian Kennedy, who appointed Oakley in March 2008

I find that disturbing, why would BK be proactive getting himself involved in the PI work?Do you know that as a fact, or just a theory ?

Does it mean BK was in cohort with Oakley to produce the e-fits for OO report for the McCanns to deceive the McCanns ? Else what would be the point of falsifying e-fits ?

As before......

plebgate:

If Mi5ck McSpy is posting here I think we should know. That is what I gathered from Tony's last post.

ETA wouldn't anybody want to know this - if they have Pm'd him?

Bellisa

I believe the Smiths.

To publicly put private information about a poster here is terrible.

Plebgate

Ordinarily I think pm's should not be revealed BUT if it is Mi5ck McSpy then I am glad Tony has alerted me.

petunia

Is that the pink ponce Plebgate??

Plebgate

No it seems it could be one of their witnesses at the libel trial, Michael Wright?

Bellisa

But plebgate we are all aware that there are 'monitors' on here. And disruptors.

If it is who tony suggests it is what can he do? Put his own views across? Steer people away from the truth?I always found the rooster a good poster though.

We can choose to ignore such people.

The truthwillout

OK, I'll bite...Why the Mi5ck McSpy name if its MW? Is he MI5?

plebgate wrote:petunia wrote:Is that the pink ponce Plebgate??No it seems it could be one of their witnesses at the libel trial, Michael Wright?

kevmack

No, you are wrong, read back through the posts and you'll see what the connection is. I'm certainly not posting it again.

Thank you Plebgate.Like i said earlier keep your friend's close and your enemies closer.MW has a lot to answer for Imo.

kevmack

plebgate wrote:just my take on his name, spying on forums. ha ha.

In which case he would have no need to join the forum, and tell Tony privately who he knew..this is an open forum, anyone can read it, you don't need to be a member and as I said, if he wanted to remain "undercover" so to speak he's hardly likely to give Tony the information that he did. And I'm sorry but that does not in any way excuse what Tony has done..it is a breach of confidence and is totally against forum rules to divulge contents of private messages on the open forum

It is NOT Michael Wright, you're just making this worse

plebgate

Well, the Rooster can always post and let us know whether Tony is right or wrong.

(in response to the link that we can't read)

You've got the wrong post, you need to go further back than that. Tony has now deleted the original post, but you can still see it in replies

Nofateworse etc

I'm not aware of it being a forum rule, Kevmack, but, speaking generally, I would certainly not be pleased if someone passed on a confidence without checking with me first - not just on a forum but in the "real world" too.

plebgate

I have posted Tony's last word on the matter. How are you so sure Tony is wrong?

Are you there the Rooster?

kevmack

Plebgate, you really need to go back to the beginning of the thread and read the whole thing, it's turning into chinese whispers here..The Rooster is NOT, repeat NOT Michael Wright

plebgate quotes Nofarteworse etc.

But if it is Mi5ck McSpy, how does anyone know whether their confidences by pm have been passed on or not?

plebgate asks kevmack in response to going back to the start of thread

How can you be so sure? Tell us that.

Bellisa

NFWTD I can remember an issue with private mails before with two members who were warned not to publish them to the forum so I did think it was against forum rules?

Thetruthwillout (to kevmack re MW)

Well if it isn't MW then all we know from Tony is it is a close personal friend of BK.....I don't know who BK's friends are so a bit useless to me at least.

kevmack (to plebgate - How can you be so sure? Tell us that.

Because I've taken part in the entire conversation..tony used michael wright as an example of people connected to the McCanns spying on forums. The Rooster is not connected to the McCanns, he is friends with someone else who is...just go back and read it all carefully plebgate

plebgate

(TTWO said Well if it isn't MW then all we know from Tony is it is a close personal friend of BK.....I don't know who BK's friends are so a bit useless to me at least.)

I tend to tell my close personal friends quite a bit about myself, how do we know that this has not happened here?

If Tony is correct then I thank him for putting me on ALERT.

Kevmack said Because I've taken part in the entire conversation..tony used michael wright as an example of people connected to the McCanns spying on forums. The Rooster is not connected to the McCanns, he is friends with someone else who is...just go back and read it all carefully plebgate

plebgate

Thank you Kevmack, I would rather let the Rooster speak for himself.

Thetruthwillout

I guess my point is that technically Tony hasn't outed anybody as far as I can tell. Just that "Rooster" is a friend of BK.

NFWTD

I doubt if Michael Wright would be civil if he was here, from what I've heard of his exploits elsewhere!

The Rooster, if you want to comment, perhaps you could do so on a separate topic in the members' lounge.

Says she hopefully trying to keep on topic.....

chateleine

I, for one, would like Tony to explain why he outed someone on the basis of private PM.I'm not interested for one iota, who's right or wrong. I am very worried about the principle.PMs are exactly what they're supposed to be: PRIVATE messages.Bringing them up or information contained, in an open forum is a breach of that privacy.

kevmack

plebgate said. I tend to tell my close personal friends quite a bit about myself, how do we know that this has not happened here?

If Tony is correct then I thank him for putting me on ALERT.

Kevmac and The Rooster, why aren't they answering the question?

OMG..what question? I'm telling you to go and read the whole thread, then you will know who the Rooster is connected to, and it is NOT Michael Wright, but I am not personally going to repeat Tony's indiscretion

petunia

So it has got to be Russiandoll then ?? beddy byes for me nite nite.

yoyo in response to plebgate saying Well, the Rooster can always post and let us know whether Tony is right or wrong.

Why should he?We are all anonymous so why shouldn't he be ?It's not his fault TB breached his trust of TB.

Say I'm over-reacting all you like but in my opinion, this breach is on par with what happened when the 3As database was stolen. My PM's were published along with others' then. Are we going back to that period? What for? Today of all days when we may witness a momentous occasion inside a Lisbon court. Why has this happened now? I must admit I am really appalled.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I guess my point is that technically Tony hasn't outed anybody as far as I can tell. Just that "Rooster" is a friend of BK.He revealed the contents of a private conversation, that's not on. As for the reason he did it, well from what I can see it was because after Tony had already mentioned Russian Doll in a reply to me, because I also don't believe the Smiths are lying, the Rooster happened to mention that he thought she was a well balanced poster and he would miss her postings, as well as commenting that he thought I made some good points in my post

Then bang...Tony responds by posting information he had gained from a private discussion via pm, the Rooster did not deny anything, but was as shocked as myself and many others on here that Tony would breach a confidence in such a manner.

missmar1 wrote:I am quite a newcomer but a long time reader of this forum and have found all of this "upset" in this thread tonight quite off - putting for all those who come to read this very well run and informative forum ........I believe airing these grievances in the public eye could put potential members off registering when reading about " outing" of posters . just my view and I am not making any judgements of any posters here.

Well said!

Common themes that I've picked up on from the threads of the last month have been:(i) That TM read these threads(ii) That some contributors are probably shills(iii) That the recent weeks, and the coming weeks, are likely to be amongst the most pivotal for quite some time, (e.g. obviously the digs the libel hearing)(iv) The funding of professional PR/'Spin Doctors' by TM is a point of fact.

...and yet, despite us all being very familiar with the old adage "Divide and Conquer", (or "Divide and Rule"), we are allowing ourselves (at this key time!) to be distracted by it!

Can we just present facts? Can we then sift and dissect those facts? Can we present ideas? Can we dispassionately challenge ideas without getting emotionally involved? Can we, thus, ultimately achieve the goal of seeing justice applied to the case? (Which, history suggests, may come about as a result of achieving a 'critical mass' in the consciousness of 'Joe Public' - many of whom may, for the first time, be accessing sites such as these?).

If we can't rise above pettiness, if we can't focus on relevant facts, then TM have won... and will be laughing at us all.

Thank you Kevmack, I would rather let the Rooster speak for himself.***I, for one, would like Tony to explain why he outed someone on the basis of private PM.I'm not interested for one iota, who's right or wrong. I am very worried about the principle.PMs are exactly what they're supposed to be: PRIVATE messages.Bringing them up or information contained, in an open forum is a breach of that privacy.

petunia wrote:do you know the rooster personally Kevmack???For crying out loud..would you just read the thread..good grief, it's there in black and white, stop trying to make it all cloak and dagger, it's there plain to see and I have just posted my account of how all of this started and I can't believe that there are posters speculating who the rooster is, and now I'm being questioned about my connection to the rooster...jeez you couldn't make this up

kevmack wrote:TheTruthWillOut wrote:I guess my point is that technically Tony hasn't outed anybody as far as I can tell. Just that "Rooster" is a friend of BK.He revealed the contents of a private conversation, that's not on. As for the reason he did it, well from what I can see it was because after Tony had already mentioned Russian Doll in a reply to me, because I also don't believe the Smiths are lying, the Rooster happened to mention that he thought she was a well balanced poster and he would miss her postings, as well as commenting that he thought I made some good points in my post

Then bang...Tony responds by posting information he had gained from a private discussion via pm, the Rooster did not deny anything, but was as shocked as myself and many others on here that Tony would breach a confidence in such a manner.

I get that and actually agree kevmack. At best it is very rude of Tony to talk about PM's (bannable on all other forums I post on). Semantics, but outed to me is if Tony had revealed the real name of Rooster. I also was a victim of the 3A's debacle but am very careful and they got none of my personal details.

Tony should have gone to admin with the info if he was worried and let them deal with it.

My biggest beef with Tony is he tends to throw a grenade in to a thread and seemingly bugger off to bed, giggling! That's how I picture it anyway.

petunia wrote:I didn't ask if you was him i asked if you knew him.And I told you I don't..sorry but what part of NO, wasn't clear...have you actually read the thread yet...I posted a bit further up this page about how it all started, read that and then go back to the start of the thread and it will become clear to you..hopefully

Sorry don't mean to be disrespectful but this is so ridiculous now, I imagine the Mc's are having a right laugh..or maybe not because it's d-day for them tomorrow, but seriously this has turned into a joke, it really has

TheTruthWillOut wrote:kevmack wrote:TheTruthWillOut wrote:I guess my point is that technically Tony hasn't outed anybody as far as I can tell. Just that "Rooster" is a friend of BK.He revealed the contents of a private conversation, that's not on. As for the reason he did it, well from what I can see it was because after Tony had already mentioned Russian Doll in a reply to me, because I also don't believe the Smiths are lying, the Rooster happened to mention that he thought she was a well balanced poster and he would miss her postings, as well as commenting that he thought I made some good points in my post

Then bang...Tony responds by posting information he had gained from a private discussion via pm, the Rooster did not deny anything, but was as shocked as myself and many others on here that Tony would breach a confidence in such a manner.

I get that and actually agree kevmack. At best it is very rude of Tony to talk about PM's (bannable on all other forums I post on). Semantics, but outed to me is if Tony had revealed the real name of Rooster. I also was a victim of the 3A's debacle but am very careful and they got none of my personal details.

Tony should have gone to admin with the info if he was worried and let them deal with it.

My biggest beef with Tony is he tends to throw a grenade in to a thread and seemingly bugger off to bed, giggling! That's how I picture it anyway.Totally agree, private messages should remain private and lets face it, the Rooster obviously had nothing to hide as he told Tony who he knew, but he probably wasn't expecting that information to become public knowledge

But in my judgment the time has come for forum members to be made aware that some people on this forum who have very close associations to the McCann Team, such as you have had since before Madeleine was reported missing, masquerade here under a variety of guises

Looks like he's going to point and shriek at anyone that's ever disagreed with him. And probably post their pms

Rachel Granada wrote:If Havern wants to preserve any kind of credibility for her forum, she will ban Bennett for breaching the confidence of another poster. Others have been banned for much, much less.

Is it finally starting to dawn on Havern's members what a spiteful, two-faced backstabber Bennett is?

A stroll around there, especially the private areas, shows an increasing unrest in the ranks. And I think the banning of Russiandoll may well have finally opened the festering sore. It is beginning to look like Havern has been sidelined by bennett - kind of a replay of what happened to HiDiHo. She fought back, I wonder if Havern has the backbone to go up against bennett, And it's not a good time for internecine warfare amongst the haters, though it is a big bonus for those of a different opinion.